| 1 |
On 08/24/2010 03:52 PM, Al wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> I'm really curious if I'm the only person in the world that keeps having |
| 4 |
>> such problems (on fresh & clean systems!). how the heck can people |
| 5 |
>> develop software on cygwin if it crashes constantly, randomly, and |
| 6 |
>> unreproducible. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Great! |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You are the fist one, who comes up with stability warnings towards |
| 12 |
> Cygwin, after I am trying for 3 days to get it running with Prefix. |
| 13 |
> Checkings are really slow, feels like 1995. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
hehe, i had to check again, before ranting against cygwin - it could |
| 16 |
have gotten better - sadly enough it hasn't. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I tried to collect informations about Cygwin before. Wikipedia writes |
| 20 |
> they use it, to compile Sun Java and OpenOffic. That is serious |
| 21 |
> software. Isn't it? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
yep, that's serious. but there are always serious peaces of software |
| 24 |
(eclipse is a good example here), where i can only bang my head against |
| 25 |
the nearest wall, when i see what they're doing ;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
you cannot know, _how_ exactly they use cygwin. i can imagine somebody |
| 28 |
sitting there once each month trying to get a openoffice build through - |
| 29 |
that person knows that cygwin is unstable and simply tries as often as |
| 30 |
is required to get the build through - simple restart each command until |
| 31 |
it works. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
my (our companies) use case is a different one: we need a _really_ |
| 34 |
stable environment, as we long to do nightly builds of software which |
| 35 |
consists of literally billions of lines of code. the build takes hours |
| 36 |
on really fast machines, and we can't be watching windows all the time |
| 37 |
like "owh - it stopped again after building 10 hours. let's restart." |
| 38 |
(excuse the "10 hours", but windows _is_ slow ;)). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Now what? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> I still believe that the majority of my target group would not spend |
| 44 |
> extra money only to feed microsoft. Switching to interix would |
| 45 |
> drastically reduce the group of potential users. Still it may be the |
| 46 |
> better decision as a large group of frustrated users is nothing good |
| 47 |
> itself. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
hm. that's the good old question whom we're targeting. i personally |
| 50 |
target businesses longing to have a stable environment to build their |
| 51 |
software (us :)). so there is a clear no-go for instabilities of any |
| 52 |
kind. (that's why i'm fixing all those annoying interix issues one after |
| 53 |
the other. i admit it's a slow process, and interix prefix (the upstream |
| 54 |
one at least) is not really usable at the moment, but hey - i'm rather |
| 55 |
alone on the windows side). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Guess I spend another day testing Cygwin, to find out how far the |
| 59 |
> instabilities really matter. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
yeah, sure - are you seeing any instabilities yet? |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
markus |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> Al |
| 67 |
> |
Archives